Date
1 - 4 of 4
SPDX Governance Next Steps
Steve Winslow
Thanks Richard and Jilayne!
Yes, in other cases we've seen one LF project become a member of another, for purposes of showing support and furthering collaboration between the projects' communities. In other LF projects there are often multiple tiers of membership, including an "associate" membership as you mentioned. For this proposal for SPDX we've kept it simple with just a single "General" membership tier, so that's what Yocto would fall into as well.
Best,
Steve
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 5:40 PM J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote:
Hi Richard,
I love your forward thinking! First we have to have the review and acceptance of the proposal. Assuming that goes through and as to whether the Yocto Project could be an SPDX member - that is probably a question for the LF, as I'm not sure how one LF project being a member of another LF project works when you have the same "parent".
In any case, I'd think we can figure out something to show the strong support and relationship!
Cheers,
Jilayne
On 8/25/21 2:28 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Wed, 2021-08-25 at 20:09 +0000, Phil Odence via lists.spdx.org wrote:SPDX Community, As previewed in the June General Meeting, the Core Team has submitted a proposal for changing the governance of SPDX. The reasoning for the change and substance are the same as what we discussed in that meeting. However, we have simplified the implementation considerably. Importantly, the project will continue to operate day to day as we have for over a decade but with better defined governance. Attached is a document that summarizes the proposal and provide links to the details. In the second half of next Thursday’s General Meeting we will try to reach consensus on the proposal. In the meantime, once you have studied the matter, provide feedback or raise any questions on this thread. (Note, the many of the details are housed in a GitHub repo but again comments/questions go here.) If we do not reach consensus on Thursday, we may hold the discussion over to the following meeting.FWIW I've been wondering how we could show a relationship between Yocto Project and SPDX as we are a strong support of it so this looks timely in that regard assuming we'd be eligible as an associate member? Cheers, Richard
J Lovejoy
Hi Richard,
I love your forward thinking! First we have to have the review and acceptance of the proposal. Assuming that goes through and as to whether the Yocto Project could be an SPDX member - that is probably a question for the LF, as I'm not sure how one LF project being a member of another LF project works when you have the same "parent".
In any case, I'd think we can figure out something to show the strong support and relationship!
Cheers,
Jilayne
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I love your forward thinking! First we have to have the review and acceptance of the proposal. Assuming that goes through and as to whether the Yocto Project could be an SPDX member - that is probably a question for the LF, as I'm not sure how one LF project being a member of another LF project works when you have the same "parent".
In any case, I'd think we can figure out something to show the strong support and relationship!
Cheers,
Jilayne
On 8/25/21 2:28 PM, Richard Purdie
wrote:
On Wed, 2021-08-25 at 20:09 +0000, Phil Odence via lists.spdx.org wrote:SPDX Community, As previewed in the June General Meeting, the Core Team has submitted a proposal for changing the governance of SPDX. The reasoning for the change and substance are the same as what we discussed in that meeting. However, we have simplified the implementation considerably. Importantly, the project will continue to operate day to day as we have for over a decade but with better defined governance. Attached is a document that summarizes the proposal and provide links to the details. In the second half of next Thursday’s General Meeting we will try to reach consensus on the proposal. In the meantime, once you have studied the matter, provide feedback or raise any questions on this thread. (Note, the many of the details are housed in a GitHub repo but again comments/questions go here.) If we do not reach consensus on Thursday, we may hold the discussion over to the following meeting.FWIW I've been wondering how we could show a relationship between Yocto Project and SPDX as we are a strong support of it so this looks timely in that regard assuming we'd be eligible as an associate member? Cheers, Richard
Richard Purdie
On Wed, 2021-08-25 at 20:09 +0000, Phil Odence via lists.spdx.org wrote:
and SPDX as we are a strong support of it so this looks timely in that regard
assuming we'd be eligible as an associate member?
Cheers,
Richard
SPDX Community,FWIW I've been wondering how we could show a relationship between Yocto Project
As previewed in the June General Meeting, the Core Team has submitted a
proposal for changing the governance of SPDX. The reasoning for the change and
substance are the same as what we discussed in that meeting. However, we have
simplified the implementation considerably. Importantly, the project will
continue to operate day to day as we have for over a decade but with better
defined governance. Attached is a document that summarizes the proposal and
provide links to the details.
In the second half of next Thursday’s General Meeting we will try to reach
consensus on the proposal. In the meantime, once you have studied the matter,
provide feedback or raise any questions on this thread. (Note, the many of the
details are housed in a GitHub repo but again comments/questions go here.) If
we do not reach consensus on Thursday, we may hold the discussion over to the
following meeting.
and SPDX as we are a strong support of it so this looks timely in that regard
assuming we'd be eligible as an associate member?
Cheers,
Richard
Phil Odence
SPDX Community,
As previewed in the June General Meeting, the Core Team has submitted a proposal for changing the governance of SPDX. The reasoning for the change and substance are the same as what we discussed in that meeting. However, we have simplified the implementation considerably. Importantly, the project will continue to operate day to day as we have for over a decade but with better defined governance. Attached is a document that summarizes the proposal and provide links to the details.
In the second half of next Thursday’s General Meeting we will try to reach consensus on the proposal. In the meantime, once you have studied the matter, provide feedback or raise any questions on this thread. (Note, the many of the details are housed in a GitHub repo but again comments/questions go here.) If we do not reach consensus on Thursday, we may hold the discussion over to the following meeting.
Best regards,
Phil
L. Philip Odence
General Manager, Black Duck Audit Business
Synopsys Software Integrity Group, Burlington, MA
M (781) 258-9502 | phil.odence@...
https://www.synopsys.com/audits
